Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation.
Starvation: The Role Of Agri-Business
Starvation: The Role of Agri-business
For the civilized world as well as those of us who might have global view of things in terms of our progressive agenda, we should all be PISSED off and try to do something that people die of starvation why other people live like kings!! I just do not think that it is rrite; I’m not a believer of the eradication of poverty as a practical reality but I’m strong believer in humanity and the dignity of the human individual. There is a certain way to live and there is a certain way not to live; it is a shame when people die because there is no food, it is a shame on all of us as human beings.
As usual, my interest is how to channel business ideas to help people. I like business because of the do or die mentality, and the fact that I need results. In some parts of Africa, such as Zambia and Angola, the land is not used to its fullest capacity, and yet people often can’t afford a meal. The land needs to be exploited for the benefit of the people. Why should we be hearing things like “shortage of food?” I will never advocate for socialism because I want people to work and accordingly be rewarded as such; but it is a crime when people want to work and yet they can’t be allowed and as a consequence end loosing out on a meal; I think that is just total injustice!!
How can business play a role? Well, there is what we call “Agribusiness” which is pretty much business in agriculture. Setting up a business, knowing fully well the costs associated with the venture is certainly something that we should all be aware, and when hiring workers we should all hire them with the knowledge that they are employees. However, the way the factory can be run is pretty much with a sense of social purpose; which is grassroots economic independence! Providing employment is one way of seeing poverty fade away structurally. What we need is not ideas out of the blues but ideas that force development by making it a structural reality!! When you finance the operations of a company in Africa with capital flows from the outside world, you basically allow yourself to offset certain business costs without destroying the lives of the people who work for you. That allows them to understand the value the company holds where some actually make it their responsibility to see the company do well.
In business, there is always a need to feel that you are contributing! When a company has a culture where people inherently feel their worth with the company then you have a company that will last. Companies engage in the production of food should understand that not only are they “in-it” to make money but they also provide a service to their consumers; this allows great innovation and respect for the product.
As a result, business can play a role in mitigating the effects of starvation. Commercial farms, that produce great amounts of food every year should hire people, understand their balance sheet, make profit, but also understand the nature of their consumers! In most developing countries, there is hardly any diversification of food because the "staple" is the central meal---rice, corn etc!!! As a consequence, when a company knows that it controls a large market share of business in the production of that food it is imperative that it is socially conscious that the unimaginable profit pursuits as well as inefficient production of food leads to the starvation of many aspects of the population.
In a world, where we have the technology to maintain the integrity of food as well as exponential, efficient production of food I don’t think starvation should be a way people die! We really need to create opportunities for people to help themselves. What we don’t want are hand-outs: but creating structural environments where we can see people do something good for themselves is something that we want and we can start by making businesses part of our progressive agenda. We need not have a division when it comes to understanding that making profits is not at the peril of social responsibility; especially for companies dealing with products that are consumed.
Agribusiness has a role to play in making sure that there is enough food supply, with a market determined price, and that there is no over-production!!
- gmtonga1987's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Hey George, A few thoughts.
Hey George,
A few thoughts. :)
"I will never advocate for socialism because I want people to work and accordingly be rewarded as such"
What makes you say that? Socialism is a very broad category of political ideas. And besides, it's under capitalism that people who work never get the full share of their productivity (otherwise there would be no surplus value).
"Well, there is what we call 'Agribusiness' which is pretty much business in agriculture."
That's not what most people mean when they say agribusiness. Agribusinesses, in popular parlance, are large, centralized, private institutions like factory farms. Big agribusiness is unsustainable environmentally, and I have yet to find one that acts in a socially or ecologically respectful manner. Smaller, region-specific farms have historically worked best and tend to be most responsive to the needs of the community and the local environment.
"When you finance the operations of a company in Africa with capital flows from the outside world, you basically allow yourself to offset certain business costs without destroying the lives of the people who work for you."
But when operations are financed from thousands of miles away, that also means that ultimate control over decision-making is thousands of miles away from the actual site of the business.
"As a consequence, when a company knows that it controls a large market share of business in the production of that food it is imperative that it is socially conscious that the unimaginable profit pursuits as well as inefficient production of food leads to the starvation of many aspects of the population."
I agree with your sentiment, George, but I just don't think it's realistic to expect a for-profit, hierarchically-run corporation to act like that. The evidence points to the pursuit of more and more profit over all other interests.
It's also the nature of the market. If Company A decides to be less profitable because it is helping the community and being socially responsible, Company B can come in, and because it is more profitable, can drive Company A out of business. That's how the nature of the market works: it's that "do or die" mentality that you mentioned, though it's more like "grow or die." If we're interested in progressive social values more than mere profits, then we need to come up with economic structures that reward generosity, not greed, and reward sustainability, not profit-driven unsustainability.
Awesome Objections
"What makes you say that? Socialism is a very broad category of political ideas. And besides, it's under capitalism that people who work never get the full share of their productivity (otherwise there would be no surplus value)."
1984 is a scary representation of socialism and besides; im inherently into freedom that any hint of freedomis good: GROUP THINK is something that i do not agree with. I would rather suffer than loose individual freedom as well as identity( libertarain); which is compromised under a socialist agenda and the history of "socialism” proves that. I like being in an environment where ideas are as different as the colors on the South African Flag because it prevents a lot of bad things from happening. Socialism to me is slavery in disguise!!! Initially i was a Marxist because of the freedom it provided from society; but i later found that my belief in Marxism, despite its sociological merit, actually infringed on other people's lives! I'm more than aware that in capitalism people don't get their share of their productive capacities; but that is not to suggest that a belief in the idea that to every man and woman according to his/her capacities is an idea that in of itself is wrong.
"That's not what most people mean when they say agribusiness. Agribusinesses, in popular parlance, are large, centralized, private institutions like factory farms. Big agribusiness is unsustainable environmentally, and I have yet to find one that acts in a socially or ecologically respectful manner. Smaller, region-specific farms have historically worked best and tend to be most responsive to the needs of the community and the local environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agribusiness ( The above definition is part of it Agri-business is the large scale production of food. The definition I wrote played on the fact that it is business in agriculture which is true; but the large scale definition comes into play because that is part of the criticism of agri-business. However, the underlying logistical fact is that it is business in agricultural products. There was something today on the morning news about corn-- King Corn was the documentary and had to do with the fact that large scale production of corn has compromised the nutritional value of corn. Very much a formidable objection.
"But when operations are financed from thousands of miles away, that also means that ultimate control over decision-making is thousands of miles away from the actual site of the business."
True. Where ever capital is that is where the decision making is. That is why i always think it is good for those who are high up the ladder to understand the concern of the average worker. However, it would be impractical to suggest that decision making are not with those who feel the burden of running the business. I highly doubt a mechanical engineer, whose only focus would be a the factory infrastructure would be concerned with share holders, financial flow within the firm, or for that matter the overall health distribution of the general working population. This is not suggesting that the opposite can't happen it is just that in a world were specialization is in fact a good career move, i doubt many extend themselves beyond their immediate interests. So, I see nothing wrong with decision making being away from the actual geographical location of the business; what I see wrong is when the people who make decision have no idea of the people who work for them, their interests, and their life priorities; decision making in this case is just absurd-- it is like being asked to make a decision about a soup you have never had but if you have had that soup and you find yourself in china i think the decision you can make is rationally legitimate.
"I agree with your sentiment, George, but I just don't think it's realistic to expect a for-profit, hierarchically-run corporation to act like that. The evidence points to the pursuit of more and more profit over all other interests.
It's also the nature of the market. If Company A decides to be less profitable because it is helping the community and being socially responsible, Company B can come in, and because it is more profitable, can drive Company A out of business. That's how the nature of the market works: it's that "do or die" mentality that you mentioned, though it's more like "grow or die." If we're interested in progressive social values more than mere profits, then we need to come up with economic structures that reward generosity, not greed, and reward sustainability, not profit-driven unsustainability."
Indeed, i do not object to the realities of the market; and i think my suggestion is not to abstain away from profits; but simply the business reality that a Company A has a product that is valued because of its integrity; if they pursue profits at the peril of the product in the long-run they will loose. Today's wall street journal suggested that banks lost money because they allowed the instant profits to cloud their eyes and eventually ended up loosing; and for the unlucky ones being wiped off the face of the earth. I also refer to King Corn. Consumer are not victims, because they can dictate how most of these companies act; supply and demand the in my assessment a reactionary system where one side does A the other side reacts and so on; eventually we reach a stage where both sides of the supply and demand are satisfied.
"If we're interested in progressive social values more than mere profits, then we need to come up with economic structures that reward generosity, not greed, and reward sustainability, not profit-driven unsustainability."
I couldn't have said it better. This is where government comes in. But not "create" economic structures but understand that certain policies will eventually lead to a certain way of economic transaction. Capitalism mushroomed because reward was tilted towards innovation; an it worked well to that extent that the current system has seen a plethora of products. I'm also against unstable ANYTHING. Hence my interest in seeing things work the way they are supposed to. Profit- driven unsustainability is, i think, wrong when it comes to business because it lacks foresight; hence the downfall of Bear Sterns! Reward sustainability... certainly! That is what we want.
My overall argument is that agribusiness is in a position to fix problems of hunger. I do not object to the tactics they use to gain their market share, because i think competition forces these businesses to provide a better product; that is why Monopolies are bad! Agri-business can go for profits, but still be made to understand the position they occupy, by providing incentives. I'm not advocating for subsidies, because it will lead them to become complacent. I'm advocating incentives in terms of industry awards etc; companies are highly concerned with their reputation!!
I think the problem is that in the United States corporations have been vilified, though partly true, and they have been made into monsters... when in fact that are as vulnerable as a little baby. They live to serve their customers; in her book Goldman Sachs: A culture of success Endlich pointed out to a time when Goldman grew so big that one employee she cites said that the company had grown so big AND so integral to financial services that the fed would never let them go down!! Wrong, the company did not advocate that mentality because it excited unjustified risk taking-- this is also in line with the view the company had with what they emphasize as not big, but good at what we do!
Businesses should be allowed to fight for market share with each other. That is just the nature of business. However, that should not in any case dictate how the product they have comes out!
Hope i cleared some of your concerns. However, I highly doubt we can deny the fact that balancing social responsibility and what a business is supposed to do initially which is to make profits is difficult. But unearthing the possibilities or the impossibilities is certainly a way to go; especially for agri-business which would certainly feed people dying of hunger. If I can make 12,000 0000 profit producing food and effectively feed people then that is okay. Why, because I have found a way to produce food at a faster rate (allowing it to be more), and it still maintains nutritional value then that is okay—this also inherently beats the competition. In finance, it is usually the best risk management software; making sure that the firm does not tolerate absurd risk taking an the people engaged in business with are doing the things that they are supposed to. Overall, I can’t deny the balancing act.
I really do recommend King Corn--- I saw a potion of it on TV. I think it should be out soon, if not.